LEGAL PROVISIONS FOR MAINTENANCE OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN INDIA

IN A SIGNIFICANT JUDGMENT PASSED IN THE CASE OF “SAMTOLA DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P,  SLP (C) NO.26651 OF 2023” DATED 27.03.2025, THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER THE ACT MAY PROVIDE FOR THE MONTHLY ALLOWANCE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND EXPENSES AND IN THE EVENT THEY FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL MAY FOR BREACH OF THE ORDER ISSUE A WARRANT FOR LEVYING FINES AND MAY SENTENCE SUCH PERSON TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM WHICH MAY EXTEND TO ONE MONTH OR UNTIL PAYMENT IS MADE WHICHEVER IS EARLIER BUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, NOWHERE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR DRAWING PROCEEDINGS FOR EVICTION OF PERSONS FROM ANY PREMISES OWNED OR BELONGING TO SUCH A SENIOR PERSON.

The fact of the Case:

1. One Kallu Mal (dead) aged about 75 years and his wife Samtola Devi aged about 68 years had three sons and two daughters namely Krishna Kumar, Janardan Kumar, Rajender Kumar, Sushila Gupta, and Anjali Kumari respectively. Out of the two daughters, Sushila Gupta is married to Suresh Narottam Das Gupta whereas Anjali Kumari is unmarried. The said Kallu Mal has a house bearing No. 778 in Khairabad, Sultanpur, and various shops therein, precisely three shops in the lower part of the house. One of the shops is occupied by the elder son Krishna Kumar who is presently carrying on the utensil business from the said shop which he had taken over from his father. The other son Janardan is doing electrical business from the other shop. The third son Rajender Kumar is dead and his wife has remarried whereas his son is living with the eldest son Krishna Kumar. The third shop has been gifted by Kallu Mal to the younger daughter Anjali Kumari, who has rented it out at the rate of Rs. 26,500/- per month. Apart from the above house and three shops, the late Kallu Mal had certain other properties as well. It appears that the relations of Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi were not cordial with their sons. Consequently, on 04.08.2014, Kallu Mal made an application to the SDM, Sadar of District Sultanpur alleging that his eldest son Krishna Kumar often beats him and tortures him mentally and physically. He has friendships with people having criminal antecedents. He often abuses him. His behavior resultantly deteriorated his position in the society. Therefore, requesting the SDM to take appropriate action against him in accordance with the law.

2. In 2017, Kallu Mal along with his wife Samtola Devi initiated proceedings for grant of maintenance against their two sons which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.828 of 2017 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur. The Family Court vide order dated 04.12.2018 awarded maintenance of Rs 4,000/- to Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi each, a total of Rs.8,000/- per month payable equally by two sons Krishna Kumar and Janardan Kumar by the 7th day of each calendar month. Aforesaid order is final and conclusive as it has not been challenged till date by any party in any higher forum. It appears that the two daughters of Kallu Mal started interfering in the family matters concerning him, his wife Samtola Devi and his two sons. The eldest daughter Sushila Gupta got a gift deed of the lower part of the northern portion of the aforesaid House No.778 in her favour. She even got the sale deed executed for the southern part of the house in favour of her husband Suresh Narottam Das Gupta. Apart from the above, the two daughters managed the transfer of a residential plot by their father Kallu Mal in favour of one Amrita Singh vide sale deed dated 14.12.2017. Another plot of 121 sq. meters was transferred vide the sale deed dated 20.03.2019 in favour of Suresh Narottam Das Gupta, the husband of the eldest daughter. It also appears that the eldest son Krishna Kumar married in 2018 to a girl from another caste/clan, as such Kallu Mal and his wife got annoyed with him.

3. In the light of the aforesaid background, Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 20071 on 29.04.2019 before the Maintenance Tribunal, Sub-Division Tehsil Sadar District Sultanpur. The Tribunal registered it as Case No.2527 of 20192. The Tribunal referred the matter to the Conciliation Officer but the conciliation was unsuccessful.  Kallu Mal in the said case alleged that House No.778 Khairabad, Sultanpur is his self-acquired property which has shops in the lower part. In one of the shops, he was operating his utensil business from 1971 till 2010. Taking advantage of his illness, the business of the said shop was taken over by his eldest son Krishna Kumar who later started pressurizing him to sell out the house. He further alleged that Krishna Kumar was not looking after his daily needs, not even his medical expenditure, but rather was torturing him mentally and physically. Therefore, he requested the Tribunal to evict him from the house so that he could make his own arrangements for peaceful living.

4. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record and noting the submission of the parties vide order dated 08.07.2019, directed Krishna Kumar not to encroach upon any part of the house without the permission of his parents except the shop in which he is carrying utensil business and the room with a bathroom occupied by him in which he resides with his wife and children. It was also provided that if he humiliates his parents then eviction proceedings would be initiated against him. The two sons Krishna Kumar and Janardan Kumar were directed to continue to pay maintenance to the parents, as directed by the Family Court. The Incharge of Police Station Kotwali Nagar was directed to visit the house of Kallu Mal either himself or through the regional SubInspector every 10 days so as to enquire if they are living peacefully and that no humiliation or harassment is caused to the parents by Krishna Kumar.  Kallu Mal and his wife Samtola Devi were not satisfied by the above decision and as such they preferred to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, District Magistrate Sultanpur. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by the SDM and directed for the eviction of Krishna Kumar. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, Krishna Kumar invoked Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court by filing Writ-C No.35884 of 20093. The High Court partly allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the order of eviction passed against Krishna Kumar but maintained the other directions given by the Tribunal. During the pendency of the above proceedings, Kallu Mal died and the litigation has been pursued by his wife Samtola Devi since then. Thus, Samtola Devi has filed this appeal seeking eviction of her son Krishna Kumar from the house In question after setting aside the order of the High Court.

Observation of the Court:

In view of the facts, as revealed from the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties, it is apparent that Kallu Mal had transferred the house in favour of his two daughters and the two plots, one in favour of his son-in-law and the other to stranger Amrita Singh. He had gifted one shop to the younger daughter Anjali. Therefore, exfacie he ceases to be the owner of the property and it is up to the purchasers to initiate eviction proceedings, if any, against the occupants of any part of it.

Ratio decided in this case:

The Senior Citizens Act vide Chapter II provides for the maintenance of parents and senior citizens. It inter alia provides a senior citizen or a parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earnings or the property owned by him shall be entitled to make an application against his parent or grandparent or against one or more of his children (not a minor) or where the senior citizen is issueless against specified relatives to fulfill his needs to enable him to lead a normal life. The Tribunal constituted under the Act on such an application may provide for the monthly allowance for the maintenance and expenses and in the event they fail to comply with the order, the Tribunal may for breach of the order issue a warrant for levying fines and may sentence such person to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment is made whichever is earlier. The provisions of the Senior Citizens Act, nowhere specifically provide for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior person. It is only on account of the observations made by this Court in S. Vanitha vs. Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act may also order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizens. The Tribunal thus had acquired jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction while exercising jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Senior Citizen Act which otherwise provides for treating the sale of the property to be void if it is against the interest of the senior citizen. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in Urmila Dixit (supra). However, even in the aforesaid case, the court has only held that in a given case, the Tribunal ‘‘may order’’ eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case. The Appellate Tribunal has not recorded any reason necessitating the eviction of Krishna Kumar or that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient to order eviction so as to ensure the protection of the senior citizen.

Conclusion:-

The Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in ordering his eviction merely for the reason that the property belongs to Kallu Mal, completely ignoring the fact that the claim of Krishna Kumar regarding 1/6th share and the cancellation of gifts and sale deeds is pending adjudication before the civil court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no necessity for the extreme step of ordering the eviction of Krishna Kumar from a portion of the house rather the purpose could have been served by ordering maintenance as provided under Section 4/5 of the Senior Citizens Act and by restraining him from harassing the parents and interfering in their day-to-day life. In light of the above situation, the High Court appears to be well within its jurisdiction to set aside the eviction order passed by the Tribunal and to maintain the other conditions imposed by the Tribunal.